technical review 05_13 e642... · the build -ups from the cranbook basements case study selected...

Document information:

Prepared for:!!RBKC

Date of current issue: 15.04.2014 Issue number: 1 Our reference: E642-Technical ReviewApril2014-1404-15rm.doc

Disclaimer: This report is made on behalf of Eight Associates. By receiving the report and acting on it, the client - or any third party relying on it - accepts that no individual is personally liable in contract, tort or breach of statutory duty (including negligence).

Technical Review RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

2

Introduction Eight Associates have been appointed to undertake a technical review of the technical reports submitted under the second Public Consultation period for the new basement policy of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Specifically, this technical review intends to provide a review of the Waterman technical report submitted during the second public consultation period that has the stated objective: “to carry out a critical review and recalculations of the claims made in a report produced by Eight Associates in February 2014: ‘Life Cycle Carbon Analysis of Extensions and Subterranean Development in RBKC”. In the following sections the main issues highlighted and analysed by the Waterman report are identified and discussed in further detail. A summary of the Eight Associates’ responses to key issues can be found in the left hand column of the following analysis. The technical detail is contained in the right hand column.

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 2!Technical Review ................................................................................................................. 3!Additional Comments ........................................................................................................ 14!Technical Review - Calculations ........................................................................................ 15!Technical Review – Conclusions ....................................................................................... 17!Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 19!

Executive Summary RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

3

Issue 1 Summary: Use of BRE Green Guide rating incorrectly used Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates’ build-ups selection is in line with Life Cycle Analysis best practice, and are demonstrably representative of basement construction elements.

Waterman: “The BRE Green Guide to Specification has been used to compare the materials between the case studies. Having analysed the Green Guide to Specification profile used, the element selected for the Basement external walls, floor and ground floor, is in fact a profile for a roof. As the BRE state, the embodied carbon for this element includes for the provision of plasterboard and paint to the underside, as well as assuming the thermal performance of the insulation. Such inaccuracies will therefore impact on the embodied energy of the basement, and further information is required.” Effectively, the element selected to calculate the embodied carbon of basements floors, external walls and roofs was based on a roof build up. The build-up selected by Eight Associates has the following description: BRE Green Guide build up In situ reinforced concrete slab, vapour control layer, insulation, Polyester cold applied liquid waterproofing membrane system. The build-ups from the Cranbook Basements case study selected for the Waterman’s report (49, Redcliffe Road – Dwg, TD 17) are as follows for basement walls and floors slabs: Floor slab – Cranbrook build up B503 mesh top, in situ reinforced concrete slab, cavity drain, insulation, screed, floor finishes. Basement wall – Cranbrook build up B1131 mesh, in situ reinforced concrete, A393 mesh inside face, cavity drain, insulation, wall lining When comparing the three build-ups, the main building elements are essentially the same - in situ reinforced concrete and insulation. The additional elements are linked with the waterproofing membranes recurrently used in basements walls and floor construction. Drawing No TD 17 from Cranbook basements (as per RBKC planning applications website) shows that these membranes are also present both in the basement external walls and ground floor slab from Waterman’s report case study. Therefore, the selected Green Guide profile is suitable and representative of a basement typical build-up. Also, the Green Guide roof build up selected targets an U-value of 0.25 W/m²K, in line with maximum Part L Building Regulations U-values allowed for these elements. Therefore, it is our opinion that Waterman’s comment stating that it was incorrect to use a roof build-up for walls and basement floors is erroneous.



4

Issue 1 continued

Eight Associates based all calculations on the best available methodologies. All assumptions are appropriately referenced and justified in the report. In reference to the Waterman’s comment that the selected build-ups are inclusive of plasterboard and paint, and as such they change the calculations results, we believe this not to be accurate. In the drawings from the Cranbook Basements case study used in Waterman’s report it is demonstrable that basement walls include walls finishes such as plasterboard and paint. The floors, although they don’t include plasterboard and paint will certainly include some type of floor finish, therefore we feel that the comment is superfluous and imbalanced.

Issue 2 Inaccurate BRE Green Guide Rating Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates has selected the best available data to use in the study with the aim of achieving a balance between the inherent level of uncertainty, and providing a standardised and reliability methodology.

Waterman: “Due to the Green Guide rating for a Zinc roof not being available, this was substituted for a Lead Roof. Such substitutions will impact on the embodied energy for the roof and could have either a negative or positive effect on the final figures.” Unfortunately the Green Guide for materials specification does not offer the option of zinc roofs and therefore the best available data was used, which in this case was a lead roof. Even in the International EPD® System, companies and organisations are allowed to use a defined proportion of selected generic data and other generic data in their LCA calculation. This is because one of the main constraints of a life cycle assessment is the availability of data. In this specific case, the calculation of the embodied carbon of a zinc roof would have to be carried out using a completely different methodology than the one used in the BRE Green Guide. Consequently the necessary assumptions would be substantial to capture a 60-year life cycle, waste and materials, and transportation to and from site. This alternative methodology would introduce many associated inaccuracies and assumptions to create a detailed material profile. Eight Associates therefore opted for a standardised methodology and used the best available data for the study.


5

Issue 3 Embodied carbon from transport and waste manufacturer is double counted. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates’ methodology and LCA system boundaries are clearly and well defined in page 14 of the report. There are no double counted items.

Waterman: “The BRE Green Guide to Specification Embodied Energy calculations include for the transport of waste away from site, and an allowance of 15% wastage for each material used. The embodied energy for transport and waste has been calculated separately as part of Eight Associates report; therefore, such items have been double counted.” The only waste considered for the embodied carbon of construction works was spoil removal and demolition waste, which is accounted for in the BRE Green Guide. There are no double counted items. As page 14 from Eight Associates 2014 report clarifies: 1 – Embodied carbon – “At this stage the inventory included all the carbon emissions related to the building’s material processes, from raw materials acquisition to the materials’ processing impacts, deliveries on site and refurbishment and end of life data for the 60 years, all provided in an aggregate CO2eq from the BRE Green Guide tool” 2- Construction works embodied carbon – “During this stage, estimates of the quantity of electricity and fuels used on the project site are used, as well as the removal of spoil and demolition waste from the site. The fuel consumption of the machinery and vehicles used and the electricity consumed at the site during the constructions works are accounted for. The transportation for workers to and from site is excluded.” Therefore, Eight Associates has not double counted embodied from transport and waste, the author is mistaken.


6

Issue 4 Assumptions have been made in respect to distances waste travelled from site. Eight Associates Comments summary: LCA and Carbon Footprints methodologies imply assumptions, as typically information is not detailed enough and available for the complete life cycle analysis. Eight Associates assumptions are in line with LCA best practices and follow international standards guidelines.

Waterman: “The Eight Associates report acknowledges that where data has not been available, significant assumptions have been made. Such assumptions will result in significant differences in Life Cycle Carbon outputs, therefore, influencing the results.” This is a speculative comment. Life Cycle Assessment methodologies are not an exact science and are flexible tools that aim to compare a range outcomes assignable to process. Uncertainty in LCA is considered to be the main flaw of the many methodologies. As per the document from UNEP/SETAC “Life Cycle Initiative Life Cycle Impact Assessment Programme”, which analyses best practices in LCA assessments, the following is clear: “It was recognized early on in the methodological development of LCA that cause-and-effect relationships are sometimes difficult, if not impossible to prove. Therefore, in contrast to more absolute approaches, such as environmental risk assessment (ERA), LCIA is a tool for comparing relative measures of impact using surrogate methods (e.g., stressors effects concepts) (Fava et al. 1992, Barnthouse et al., 1997).” The Eight Associates report clearly states that the main goal of the presented work is to compare and contrast, using similar and standardised assumptions, the relative carbon footprint of above ground extensions and subterranean extensions. Therefore, where uncertainty is presented in the study, Eight Associates has tried to provide the same level of certainty for both for above ground and subterranean extensions in relation to the assumptions by using standardised data sources and methodologies. Both types of extension were treated the same and no exceptions were made. Also, one of the best tactics to mitigate uncertainty in LCA or similar technical assessments is through sensitivity analysis. Eight Associates report chapter “Sensitivity analysis of results” aims to discuss and analyse the results from previous chapters evaluating different scenarios for the selected case studies, allowing the results to be questioned with a determined level of confidence in line with the graphs shown on the following page. This means that in this chapter different scenarios were considered to weigh the precision of the results and to understand if the change of variables could significantly alter the results of the study.


7

Issue 4 continued

Even using the best scenarios available for subterranean extensions (i.e. use of recycled concrete), subterranean extensions still presented a higher carbon footprint than above ground extensions.

The diagrams above show the appropriate interpretation of a LCA. Note that a

unanimous conclusion is not the aim, the aim is to demonstrate a range of potential outcomes.

Finally, a benchmark analysis was performed to analyse if the results from the report were in line with other scientific and similar published studies. Page 47 of Eight Associates report shows that benchmark studies (please see ref 23 and 24 from the Eight Associates references list) show that the embodied carbon impact of a building life cycle is generally around 15 - 20% of the total carbon footprint of the building. Eight Associates analysis concluded that the results of the report showed that, for extensions, the sum of the embodied carbon of materials and the carbon emissions of the construction works were approximately 24% of the building’s life cycle. For basements the figures were likely to increase to 29%. The report concluded that the results follow the trend of findings from similar studies and the higher contribution of the embodied carbon in the Eight Associates results could be attributed to the fact that end of life of materials and associated operations is included in the carbon factors used (i.e. the BRE Green Guide), while for other stages was excluded (i.e. Construction works, Operational phase).


8

Issue 5 Assumptions have been made regarding construction practices. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates considers that the Embodied Carbon from construction works was likely to present a high level of uncertainty, however this phase represents only 4-5% of the total carbon emissions of the case studies and therefore the associated uncertainty is not relevant enough to affect the study’s key findings.

Waterman: “The Eight Associates report assumes that standard construction practices have been used i.e. basement excavation included the use of intensive machinery. The use of alternative modes of transport has also not been considered.” Eight Associates Report emphasises that the construction works results are the life cycle phase of the building where the results are most likely to be less accurate because of the lack of detailed and accurate data for each of project’s construction works (please see page 20 of the Eight Associates report). However, Eight Associates report also shows that the carbon emissions from the construction works phase represent only 4-5% of the total carbon emissions of the buildings analysed and therefore, the uncertainty present in these calculations is not likely to change or affect significantly the results (please see page 45 of Eight Associates report). The assumptions and machinery made for the construction works were based on discussions with Baxter’s basement experts and the reports submitted by Baxter’s under this public consultation and the Construction Method Statements and Traffic Management Plans submitted for each project planning application.

Issue 6 Change in scope for each phase of analysis impacts on overall figures. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates methodology and scope of analysis is clear and well defined in the report methodology. The exclusion of uncertain variables does not invalidate a study.

Waterman: “The Eight Associates report has acknowledged that the full Life Cycle of building services has not been undertaken, and a cradle to site approach has been adopted. Although valid, due to the same approach being adopted for all case studies, this does result in the skewing of the overall data. For example the life cycle of a gas boiler is expected to be approximately 20 years, whereas the life span of a ground source heat pump can be approximately 50 years.” This comment is speculative, does not provide a critical analysis and it is not clear in its content. The building services life cycle analysis was not undertaken due to its level of uncertainty and lack of available and accurate public data concerning the embodied carbon of the different mechanical systems (gas boilers, heat pumps, etc). The analysis of each of the mechanical systems used for each case study would involve a detailed analysis of all the components of each system, from material extraction to manufacture, which would represent intensive data gathering and several significant assumptions would have to be made. This would have produced a myriad of outcomes within the analysis. Although this consideration would be an interesting topic for further study it was not considered to be beneficial on the whole when added to the Eight Associates study. Therefore, in order to maintain coherence in the analysis and to mitigate uncertainty this analysis was excluded.


9

Issue 7 Analysis of each phase of embodied energy. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates methodology and scope of analysis is clear and well defined in the report methodology. The exclusion of uncommon variables does not invalidate a study.

Waterman: “Eight Associate reports indicates that Embodied Energy is higher for basements due to increased periods of excavation and construction. Such periods may also include the installation of ground source heat pumps or other renewable technologies, therefore, impacting on the results.” This comment is speculative, does not provide a critical analysis and it is not clear in its content. This comment seems to suggest that not considering the simultaneous installation of renewable technologies limits the study. As with Issue 6, this particular variable is very uncertain. Seemingly the only applicable technological consideration would be the installation of ground source heat pumps with pile foundations. Whilst this may be an interesting study, to Eight Associates’ knowledge none of the case studies used within the analysis featured this and it is a very rare occurrence in reality. It did not feature in the case study chosen to further analysis by Waterman and Cranbrook Basements.

Issue 8 Impact of each Embodied Carbon Phase. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates methodology and scope of analysis is clear and well defined in the report methodology. A 60 year life cycle was consistently applied in the study.

Waterman: “Eight Associate’s report, research has demonstrated that embodied carbon impact of a building life cycle is generally around 15-20% of the total carbon footprint of the building, supporting more conclusive reviews of case studies undertaken by Remsh et al (2010). Embodied energy during operation has only been considered on a yearly basis, not over the 60 years, as required. This suggests that the embodied carbon omitted during construction is a greater proportion of carbon than it effectively should be.” The comment from Waterman is not clear. However, Eight Associates has defined a clear project boundary and a defined life cycle of 60 years for the building in line with most recent advanced research and in line with the BRE Green Guide for materials specification methodology. This also follows the recommendations provided in the critical review of the Eight Associates report from 2010 by MES Energy Services and Basement Force reports. With the exception of the embodied carbon for the construction works phase, the whole analysis was performed for a 60-year period (embodied carbon and operational carbon). Therefore this comment is completely wrong and spurious.


10

Issue 9 Operationally carbon emissions are based on assumptions. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates have chosen the most applicable and approved software available. Cooling load is limited in the UK so the benefits of reduced cooling are not that significant.

Waterman: “The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) software used to calculate the operational energy is based on regulated energy. It does not include unregulated energy i.e. supplementary heating sources, small power and equipment, room function. The software also doesn’t take into account thermal flows, therefore, the true impact of solar gains, and use of thermal mass to reduce basement cooling load in the summer isn’t accounted for. The lack of data will result in emissions being skewed.” The analysis did not include unregulated energy. This can vary significantly from dwelling to dwelling. For sustainability purposes the Code for Sustainable Homes Ene 7 calculator could be used to determine the related emissions. However, the level of accuracy for the calculation tool is limited and it is unclear what differences this would potentially highlight between above ground extensions and basements. Eight Associates accepts that the UK Governments approved Standard Assessment Procedure software does have flaws in its methodology. However, it is the most widely available and approved tool for assessing a dwelling’s carbon emissions and certifying residential dwellings under Part L of UK Building Regulations. Also, the relative impact of the solar gain and thermal mass factors, which SAP does not capture accurately enough, is not certain. In relation to thermal mass and cooling load, although basements may provide a more stable internal temperature, the cooling load in the UK is typically quite small and limited to short periods within the year so any benefit realised from this would most likely be limited.

Issue 10 Operational carbon emissions calculation method is impacted by policy. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates have chosen the most applicable and approved software available. The limitations of the SAP software will not disproportionately affect the basement chosen by Waterman and Cranbrook Basements for the analysis.

Waterman: “The calculation methodology used to undertake the analysis was SAP 2009. This Government approved calculation methodology has been designed to compare the energy performance of dwellings to that of the building regulations limits. Compliance means that dwellings achieve the requirements of Building Regulations Part L. Although such a tool is the approved method by which to calculate Building Emissions, it is based on a number of assumptions, and weightings dependent on policy. The software favours materials with low thermal mass, suggesting that occupants will respond to temperature changes more quickly, and thus reduce energy consumption, when compared to developments with high thermal mass. As such this favours timber framed developments, when compared to the high thermal mass associated with basements. The software compares energy derived from gas differently to energy from electricity. However, the availability to source the electricity to operate the heat pump from low and zero carbon sources is not accounted for. In effect such a strategy could result in the operational energy for heating, cooling, and lighting to be zero.” As the software is the most widely used and accredited software, as well as being the software required to demonstrate compliance with BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment it is the most appropriate choice for the analysis. SAP typically calculates a small improvement in associated carbon emissions for dwellings with high thermal mass relative to low thermal mass, however, it is quite small.


11

Issue 10 continued

It is worth noting that the Cranbrook Basements drawings for 49 Redcliffe Road show the basement wall build-up to be: wall lining, insulation, cavity drain and concrete. Thermal admittance is typically limited to approximately 100mm within the build-up. For 49 Redcliffe Road the initial 100mm of the basement wall is most lining and insulation, which has very low, thermal mass, for the basement floor, only the screed has thermal mass. Therefore, in this circumstance SAP would not impose a meaningful penalty on the chosen basement scheme.

Issue 11 Operational Energy of the extension / basement is not considered in isolation. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates’ methodology has been designed in order to address the limitations of the previous work, as highlighted by other consultants. This considers the ‘net increase’ in carbon. The 2014 Waterman study does not include the operational carbon, which is typically 80% of the lifecycle carbon.

Waterman: “The context of the life cycle of operational energy needs to be taken in either the context of the basement, and not the retrospective improvements to the existing development, or the complete development. This is because the developments are new additions to the building; therefore, the operation of them will cause carbon dioxide emissions to be omitted. Currently, the Eight Associates report has changed the parameters of the Life Cycle Assessment for the operational phase by including the performance of the existing development as well. This means that for the operational elements covers total emissions from the dwelling and not just from the extension / basement.” This comment is flawed. It is true that adding a new part of a dwelling to an existing dwelling will reduce the emissions of the existing dwelling when considered in isolation. However, the dwelling must be considered as a whole, parts cannot be excluded intermittently. If new additions are made to a dwelling, the dwelling will still be used as one unit so it must be considered as a whole. During the previous consultation period, criticism was made by various consultants regarding the methodology used for the Eight Associates 2010 report, here the analysis considered the basement or extension in isolation without including the existing dwelling. The Waterman’s 2013 Report submitted at the time (written by the same author as the current report) which critiqued the Eight Associates 2010 report stated the following: “SAP methodology for extensions, as defined under Part L1b, requires the existing dwelling with a Part L defined notional extension to be compared against the existing dwelling with the proposed extension. The performance of the existing dwelling, therefore, has an impact on the overall carbon emissions for the dwelling. Unless the same performance specification has been used for both case studies, then direct comparisons cannot be made. The Eight Associates methodology for the 2014 report is as follows: Existing dwelling operational CO2 – New dwelling operational CO2 (with addition) = increase/decrease in operational carbon emissions. It is therefore unclear what Waterman’s objection is. The 2013 report and 2014 report appear to contradict each other in their view of the appropriate operational carbon methodology.


12

Issue 11 continued

It should be noted that the 2014 Waterman report has not calculated the operational carbon. Operational carbon is typical ly approximately 80% of the total carbon emissions (Remsh et al, 2010), however, Waterman have not included it in their analysis. Consequently the basis for their study focuses on approximately 15-20% of the total l i fecycle carbon. Without the majority of the l ifecycle carbon accounted for their analysis has l imited value.


13

Issue 12 Energy upgrades to the existing building are included in the calculations. Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates’ methodology is specifically designed to not include upgrades to the existing building. This is clearly explained in the methodology. Upgrades are calculated separately in the Sensitivity Analysis chapter.

Waterman: “Any upgrades to the existing development undertaken as part of the works impact on the embodied energy of the property. Several of the case studies highlight that reductions in operational energy have occurred, however, the Eight Associate’s report does not enable analysis to be undertaken to determine if this is as a result of the extension / basement or, other upgrades. There are schemes such as Green Deal, which will tackle this issue separately, and does not require the addition of an extension / basement to improve building performance.” This comment is completely speculative and incorrect. The Eight Associates methodology chapter clearly states that the building services are identical for the existing dwell ing and the extension and basement. And that no upgrades to the fabric were included, the assumption was that the existing dwell ing would remain completely untouched. This was carried out for the express reason that is highlighted in the above comment. Any impact in the carbon emissions after the addition is a purely result of the addition. The ‘Sensitivity Analysis’ chapter featured upgrades to the existing dwelling and was undertaken to calculate the potential of specific upgrade measures.


14

Additional comments

Comment from Waterman Transport & Development Ltd – Document 65 Eight Associates Comments summary: Eight Associates carbon factors for the waste trucks used are from Defra 2012 document. The Volvo document was used only as guidance for the type of lorries to be used.

“Reference 14 within the report is from Volvo Trucks Corporation document entitled Emissions from Volvo’s Trucks (standard diesel fuel) dated 3rd November 2000. This document is used to calculate the fuel consumption of vehicles used during the construction works. The actual figure used in the calculations for the delivery vehicles were; Lorr ies for waste removal empty 0.67 kg of CO2eq/km Lorries for waste removal ful l 0.78 kg of CO2eq/km” The comment is incorrect as the above carbon factors, used in the February 2014 Eight Associates report are from the document “2012 Guidelines to Defra / DECC's GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting”, Annex 7 - Freight Transport Conversion Tables (>3.5-7.5t – 0% load and 100% load). The Volvo document was used uniquely for research about the typical size of trucks used for construction works.

Comment from Waterman on page 9 of the 2014 report stating that consequential improvements are required under Part L1B Building Regulations.

This comment is wrong. Only dwellings with a total useful floor area of over 1000m2 are required to make consequential improvements to the existing dwelling under Part L1B, Section 6. Neither of the two dwellings included in the Waterman analysis meet this requirement.

Waterman Material Quantity Take off. Drawings discrepancy.

Waterman’s materials calculations contain a significant number of assumptions and unjustified inputs. Eight Associates have provided annotation in the following pages highlighting these issues. There are two drawings that detail two differing methods of construction for the 49 Redcliffe Road basement:

- Cranbrook Basements Drawing: TD17 Underpin Section, dated June - RHH Associates Drawing: 6783-PS-03 Section A-A, dated July.

Given the nature and dates of the drawings, the RHH Associates drawing would seemingly take precedence, however, as this cannot be confirmed both details have been calculated using ICE database to produce Embodied Carbon Calculations.

Additional Comments RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

15

Review of Waterman’s Material Quantities

Eight Associates has reviewed Appendix A from Waterman’s report and has the following comments on the Materials Quantities:

49 Redcliffe Road – Basement: Eight Associates’ Comments - 108m2: this is significantly lower than the actual measure when scaled off plan. It is also significantly lower than the 128m2 figure specifically stated on the ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ document submitted with the planning application and available on the RBKC portal. - Electrical skip: there is no documentation anywhere to validate an electrical skip being used for the site. - Concrete to underpins: these underpins are a lot smaller than the underpins included for the above ground extension, this needs justification to be valid.

Technical Review - Calculations RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

16

36 Markham Square – Above Ground Extension Eight Associates’ Comments - Concrete Coping: Given the conservation status it is not certain that a concrete coping would be installed. A natural stone would be more suitable and in keeping with the area. - Steel Frame: The installation of steel frame is not included on any of the drawings. The volume of steel added here is significant and must be validated. Standard construction methods for a mansard roof does not necessitate the installation of this much steel.

Technical Review - Calculations RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

17

Conclusions and Comments

Basement materials limited The materials used by Waterman for the basement are very limited; there are only 4 materials calculated. This means the waterproofing membranes in the basement have been omitted completely and the insulation thicknesses are very small. To achieve the high performance operational energy demand stated by Waterman, a significant increase in thickness would be required. It should be noted that Eight Associates modeled a U value of 0.15 W/m2.K in the operational analysis to ensure the basements had the lowest possible operational energy. This u value would require a tripling of the insulation stated on the basement drawings. Basement areas are significantly smaller Waterman state that the gross internal area addition is 90.54m2. Eight Associates’ scaling the drawings submitted for planning calculate the area to be 116 m2. Moreover, the ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ document submitted with the planning application and available on the RBKC portal states that the additional area is 128m2. This is a large error for the calculations. Seemingly the drawings and documentation submitted to the council do not represent the basement accurately or the quantities used in the Waterman analysis are wrong. Extensions drawings are limited in detail The above ground extension drawings have limited detail and do not provide adequate detail to undertake a detailed material by material embodied carbon analysis as performed by Waterman. It was for this reason that Eight Associates chose to utilise the BRE Green Guide, as it applies the same assumptions and quantities for all case studies so basements and above ground extensions cannot be treated differently. Waterman’s calculations for the above ground extensions are based largely on the authors assumptions The assumptions do not imply that the numbers and quantities are incorrect, however, it means that an objective analysis is more difficult to achieve, as assumptions have to be used. Moreover, there are some assumptions made in relation to the construction methods that increase the embodied carbon significantly, for example the extensive use of steel where it may not be necessary. The inclusion of demolition in the above ground extension Demolition should not be included in the embodied carbon calculations for two reasons. Firstly, it introduces a very inconsistent variable as the level of required demolition can vary extensively from project to project and does not materially affect the actual new dwelling. For this reason the Eight Associates analysis excluded external works and demolition for both above ground extensions and basement as it distorts the results.

Technical Review – Conclusions RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

18

Conclusions and Comments continued

Secondly, under a defined life cycle analysis study boundary the demolition is technically a part of the ‘cradle to grave’ lifecycle of the existing building. For example, the eventual demolition of the materials used to construct the above ground extension and basement should be included in the current embodied calculations of the present study. If the Waterman methodology was to be followed consistently then the demolition of the materials in the current study should be removed.

Eight Associates’ Materials Analysis As the review of the Waterman material calculations has demonstrated some shortcomings in the quantification and assumptions, Eight Associates has recalculated the quantities to address the issue highlighted previously. The findings are shown below, and detailed calculations are available in the appendix.

Embodied Carbon using the ICE Database

Study Total Embodied Carbon kg/CO2

Carbon per kg CO2/m2

36 Markham Sq. (Above Ground Extension) 16,519

539.8

49 Redcliffe Rd. (Basement) – Structural Engineer Drawings 83,749

721.4

49 Redcliffe Rd. (Basement) – Cranbrook Basements Drawings 77,897

670.9

The results demonstrate that using the Waterman methodology 49 Redcliffe Rd. has approximately 25.2% more embodied carbon relative to 36 Markham Sq. under the Structural Engineer scheme and 19.5% more embodied carbon under the Cranbrook Basements scheme, on an additional per metre square basis.

Technical Review – Conclusions RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

19

Appendix RBKC – Basements Policy Public Consultation Response Waterman Energy Report

Technical)Review)RBKC)–)Basem

ents)Policy)Public)Consultation)Response)Waterm

an)Energy)Report)>)Material)Q

uantities

36)Markham

)Sq.)>)Above)Ground)ExtensionDescription

LengthWidth

Area)(L)x)W)

HeightNum

berQuantity

Unit)of)m

easureNotes

Materials)

Concrete

RC#slab#on#grade#thickness#unknown,#assum

e#150mm

22.8000.150

3.42m3

RC#slab#thickening#200mm

7.4000.300

0.2000.44

m3

Assum

ption#B#not#on#drawings

RC#underpinning#to#existing#walls,#assum

e#600mm#

12.1000.600

0.6004.36

m3

Assum


Total)Volume:

8.22m3

Mass#density

2371.00kg/m

3http://w

ww.sim

etric.co.uk/si_materials.htm

Total#mass

19,490kg

Screed

65mm#screed#above#insulation#to#form

#floor22.800

0.0651.48

m3

Assum


Total)Volume:

1.48

Mass#density

2162.00kg/m

3http://w

ww.sim


Total#mass

3,204kg

Other,cem

ent,based,materials

50mm#layer#of#blinding#concrete#1:8

22.8000.050

1.14m3

Assum


Total)Volume:

1.14

Mass#density

2162.00kg/m

3http://w

ww.sim


Total#mass

2,465kg

283Waterm

an#Carbon#factor#result

External,walls,6,cavity

External#brickwork#B#LG

F7.400

2.94021.76

m2

ddt#openings8.12

m2

Net#area

13.64m2

Brickw

ork#B#83%0.100

1.13m3

Percentage#mortar#B#17%

0.23m3

Internal#blockwork

7.4002.940

21.76m2

ddt#openings8.12

m2

Net#area

13.64m2

Blockw

ork#B#93%0.100

1.27m3


0.10m3

External#walls#B#single#skin#to#show

er#and#plant#LGF

5.1502.940

15.14m2

Blockw

ork#B#93%0.140

1.97m3


0.15m3

External#brickwork#B#G

F3.730

3.10011.56

m2

ddt#openings1.20

m2

Net#area

10.36m2

Brickw

ork#B#83%0.100

0.86m3


0.18m3

Internal#blockwork

3.7303.100

11.56m2

ddt#openings8.12

m2

Net#area

3.44m2

Blockw

ork#B#93%0.100

0.32m3


0.02m3

External#walls#B#single#skin#to#party#w

all#GF

1.5503.100

4.81m2

Blockw

ork#B#93%0.140

0.63m3


0.05m3

External#brickwork#B#FF

7.5002.600

19.50m2

ddt#openings1.35

m2

Net#area

18.15m2

Brickw

ork#B#83%0.100

1.51m3


0.31m3

Internal#blockwork

7.5002.600

19.50m2

ddt#openings1.35

m2

Net#area

18.15m2

Blockw

ork#B#93%0.100

1.69m3


0.13m3

External#brickwork#B#SF

7.5002.900

21.75m2

ddt#openings2.66

m2

Net#area

19.09m2

Brickw

ork#B#83%0.100

1.58m3


0.32m3

Internal#blockwork

7.5002.900

21.75m2

ddt#openings2.66

m2

Net#area

19.09m2

Blockw

ork#B#93%0.100

1.78m3


0.13m3

Total#brickwork#volum

e5.08

m3

Mass#density

1845.00kg/m

3http://w

ww.engineeringtoolbox.com

/bricksBdensityBd_1777.html

Total#mass

9,378kg

Total#blockwork#volum

e7.65

m3

Mass#density

742.00kg/m

3106#blocks#per#m

3,#7kg#per#block#B#http://w

ww.tarm

acbuildingproducts.co.uk/products_and_services/blocks_and_mortar/blocks/lightw

eight_aircrete_blocks/toplite_7_73_n_m

m2.aspx

Total#mass

5,675kg

Total#mortar#volum

e1.62

m3

Mass#density

2,162.00kg/m

3http://w

ww.sim


Total#mass

3,495kg

Insulation,

Wall#B#Thickness#not#stated,#60m

m#m

inimum

#to#achieve#Building#Regulations

LGF

13.64m2

GF

10.36m2

FF18.15

m2

SF19.09

m2

Total#61.24

m2

Total)Volume:

4.90m3

Mass#density

30.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

147kg

Insulation#in#Lintel,#'Catnic'#type#or#similar#LG

#floor3.200

0.1000.150

10.048

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from

:#http://iglintels.com/lintels/selectingBtheBcorrectBlintel/

Lintel,#'Catnic'#type#or#similar#LG

#floor1.200

0.1000.066

10.008

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Lintel,#'Catnic'#type#or#similar#G

#floor1.350

0.1000.066

10.009

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Lintel,#'Catnic'#type#or#similar#1st#floor

1.3500.100

0.0661

0.009m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Lintel,#'Catnic'#type#or#similar#2nd#floor

1.3500.100

0.0661

0.009m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from



1.2000.100

0.0661

0.008m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Total)Area:0.091

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Mass#density

30.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

3kg

Roof,timber

Sizes)and)structural)build>ups)taken)from:

Timber#w

all#plate#100mm#x#50m

m5.200

0.1000.050

20.05

m3

Building#Construction#H

andbook#(2010)#8th#Edition,##Roy#Chudley#and#Roger#Greeno

Barry's#Introduction#to#Construction#of#B

uildings#(2006)#1st#Edition,#Stephen#Emmitt#and#Christopher#A

#Gorse,

Timber#ceiling#joists/ties

7.0000.050

0.20013.00

0.91m3

Carpentry#and#Joinery#for#Advanced#Craft#Students:#Site#Practice#(1985),#Peter#B

rett

Timber#rafters#high#pitch#100m

m#x#50m

m2.500

0.0500.100

26.000.33

m3

ddt#for#dormer#openings

1.2000.050

0.1004

0.02m3

Net

0.30m3

Timber#rafters#low

#pitch#100mm#x#50m

m#to#create#fall

6.2000.050

0.10013.00

0.40m3

Timber#braces#to#low

#pitch#rafters#(horizontal)#to#allow#headroom

#100mm#x#50m

m6.200

0.0500.100

13.000.40

m3

Partition#stud#framing#under#dorm

ers#100mm#x#50m

m1.600

0.0500.100

12.00.10

m3

Dorm

er#posts#75mm#x#75m

m1.800

0.0750.075

80.08

m3

Dorm

er#sill,#head#and#trimmer#100m

m#x#75m

m0.900

0.0750.100

120.08

m3

Plywood#decking#to#form

#flat#roof#deck,#18mm

30.2000.018

0.54m3

Timber#battens#for#slates,#38m

m#x#25m

m,#spaced#at#115m

m5.200

0.0380.025

300.15

m3

Timber#joists#for#flat#roof#(lead)#2nd#floor#150m

m#x#50m

m2.200

0.0500.150

60.10

m3

Timber#firrings#ave#thickness#50m

m2.200

0.0500.050

60.03

m3


#flat#roof#deck#at#2nd#floor,#18mm

5.6000.018

0.10m3

Timber#joists#for#flat#roof#(lead)#G

round#floor#150mm#x#50m

m2.200

0.0500.150

30.05

m3


m2.200

0.0500.050

30.02

m3


#flat#roof#deck#at#Ground#floor,#18m

m2.850

0.0180.05

m3

Timber#joists#for#flat#roof#(lead)#Low

er#Ground#floor#150m

m#x#50m

m2.000

0.0500.150

3.000.05

m3

Timber#joists#for#flat#roof#(lead)#Low

er#Ground#floor#150m

m#x#50m

m0.400

0.0500.150

6.000.02

m3


m2.000

0.0500.050

30.02

m3


m0.400

0.0500.050

60.01

m3


#flat#roof#deck#at#Ground#floor,#18m

m3.800

0.0180.07

m3

Total)Area:3.52

Mass#density

510.00kg/m

2

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&

rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=6&

ved=0CFUQFjA

F&url=http%

3A%2F%

2Fwww.ascinfo.co.uk%

2FASCContent%

2F16612%255CProductU

ploads%255CProductO

thers%255CM

S20_DeltaM

S20BB

A.pdf&

ei=mqV

CU7_2O

6Ov7Q

a3moH

wCg&

usg=AFQ

jCNFU

OXS52uM

_428NB

MMSPRA

6ewuXLA

&sig2=6pV

OMQXkfA

q5jcw2yG

t03g&bvm

=bv.64125504,d.ZGU

Total#mass

1,797kg

Steel

Reinforcement#for#concrete#not#know

n,#assume#0.15%

#of#mass#of#concrete

0.12m3

https://www.concretecentre.com

/codes__standards/eurocodes/eurocode_2/phenomena/flexure/flexural_design

_aids.aspx

Total))Volume

0.12m3

Mass#density

7850.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

968kg


#floor3.200

0.0030.640

10.007

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from



#floor1.200

0.0020.462

10.001

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Lintel,#'Catnic'#type#or#similar#G

#floor1.350

0.0020.462

10.001

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Lintel,#'Catnic'#type#or#similar#1st#floor

1.3500.002

0.4621

0.001m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from



1.3500.002

0.4621

0.001m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from



1.2000.002

0.4621

0.001m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Total)Area:0.012

m3

Assum

ption.#Data#from


Mass#density

7850.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

95kg

Steel#beams#to#act#as#purlin#for#m

ansard,#assume#203#x#203#x#46kg

5.2002

10.40m

Assum

ption#B#not#shown#on#draw

ings#B#http://w

ww.parkersteel.co.uk/Product/0853631/U

niversal+Column/203+X+203+X+46KG

+S355JR+White

Steel#beam#for#second#floor#knock#through

1.5001.50

m

Total)length:11.90

m

Mass#length

46.00kg/m

Weight#per#linear#m

etre:#http://greensteel.com.au/products/beam

sBcolumns/

Total#mass

547kg

Roof,coverings

Lead#Code#5#to#dormers

0.3000.0022

80.00

m3


1.2000.500

0.00224

0.01m3


1.1000.200

0.002212

0.01m3

Lead#flashing#and#soakers#to#dormers

1.2000.150

0.00228

0.00m3

Lead#flashing#and#soakers#to#dormers

1.3000.150

0.00228

0.00m3

Lead#flashing#to#mansard

2.8000.300

0.00222

0.00m3

Lead#flashing#to#chimney#and#m

ansard4.800

0.1500.0022

10.00

m3

Lead#flashing#to#form#gutter

5.2000.550

0.00222

0.01m3

Lead#flashing#to#GF#rooflight

8.0000.300

0.00221

0.01m3

Total0.04

m3

Mass#density

10583.00kg/m

3http://w

ww.britishlead.co.uk/sizing.htm

Total#mass

440kg

Asphalt#roof#covering

27.8000.020

0.56m3

http://www.ribaproductselector.com

/products/masticBasphaltBroofingBinsulationBfinishes/J21.aspx

Mass#density

721.00kg/m

3http://w

ww.sim


Total#mass

401kg

Zinc#roof#coverings16.30

0.0080.13

m3

http://www.sim

etric.co.uk/si_metals.htm

Mass#density

7135.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

930kg

Slate#roof#covering,#double#lapped2.500

5.2004

52.00m2

ddt#for#dormers

1.3001.200

46.24

m2

0.008Net#m

30.37

m3

Mass#density

2691.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

985kg

Coping#stone#heritage17.100

0.3000.038

0.19m3

Mass#density

2,323m3

Total#mass

452.85kg/m

3

Window

s,and,openings

Window

s

WLG

B11.76

WLG

B21.73

DLG

B13.06

DLG

B11.57

WGB1

9.21WGB2

0.60WGB3

0.60W1B1

1.35W2B2

1.47W2B3

1.19W3

1.21W3

1.21W3

1.09W3

1.09RL

0.64RL

0.77

Total#new#glazed#area

28.556m2

Glass#pane#area

0.24m3

70%#glazing,#and#double#glazed

Timber#fram

e#area0.49

m3

30%#of#area,#w

idth#of#frame#average#of#57m

m

Glazed#roof#area#at#G

F7.650

m2

Glass#pane#area

0.06m3

70%#glazing,#and#double#glazed

Total)Volume)of)GLASS:

0.30m3

Mass#V

olume

2579.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

784kg

Total)Volume)of)TIM

BER:0.49

m3

Mass#V

olume

510.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

249kg

Alum

inium#fram

e,#weight#assum

ed19.100

19.10m

Mass#m

etre0.77

kg/mhttp://gddam

ing.en.alibaba.com/product/741928031B

218286700/double_glazing_cost_best_Alum

inum_Sliding_W

indow_fram

e_china.html

Total#mass

15kg

SUMMARY)O

F)MATERIALS

ICE)CO2

Total)CO2

ConcreteTotal#M

ass19,490

kg0.14

2729

ScreedTotal#M

ass5,669

kg0.14

794

Other#cem

ent#based#materials

Total#Mass

2,465kg

0.14345

Bricks

Total#Mass

9,378kg

0.242251

Blocks

Total#Mass

5,675kg

0.3071742

Mortar

Total#Mass

3,495kg

0.174608

Insulation#Total#M

ass150

kg4.26

638

Roof#timber

Total#Mass

1,797kg

0.591060

SteelTotal#M

ass642

kg1.95

1252

LeadTotal#M

ass440

kg1.67

735

ZincTotal#M

ass930

kg3.09

2875

Asphalt#and#bitum

enTotal#M

ass401

kg0.49

196

SlateTotal#M

ass985

kg0.035

34

Sandstone#copingTotal#M

ass453

kg0.06

27

Window

s#and#openings#B#glassTotal#M

ass784

kg1.35

1059

Window

s#and#openings#B#frame#tim

berTotal#M

ass249

kg0.59

147

Window

s#and#openings#B#frame#alum

iniumTotal#M

ass15

kg1.81

26

16,519

/m2

539.8

Technical)Review)RBKC)–)Basem

ents)Policy)Public)Consultation)Response)Waterm

an)Energy)Report)>)Material)Q

uantities

49)Recliffe)Road)>)Basement

DescriptionLength

Width

Area)(L)x)W)

HeightNum

berQuantity

Unit)of)m

easureNotes

Materials)>)Structural)Engineer)Draw

ings

Concrete

RC#slab#on#grade#350mm

139.3000.350

48.76m3

RC#wall#for#basem

ent,#340mm#(see#notes)

64.6000.330

3.20068.22

m3

Drawing#6783BPSB03#Section#ABA#by#RHH#Associates#states#300m

m#wide#or#thickness#to#m

atch#existing,#whichever#is#w

ider.#Drawing's#

width#of#existing#is#330m

m#thick.#

RC#roof#in#rear#garden#150mm

45.5000.150

6.83m3

Drawing#TD17#U

nderpin#Section#by#Cranbrook#Basements#states#150m

m#C30#concrete#floor#slab.#

Total)Volume:

123.80m3

Mass#density

2371.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

293,524kg

Screed

65mm#screed#under#insulation#to#slab

116.1000.065

7.55m3


#floor116.100

0.0657.55

m3

Total)Volume:

15.09

Mass#density

2162.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

32,631kg

Other,cem

ent,based,materials

Dry#packing64.600

0.3300.075

1.60m3

Dry#packing#over#lintels16.200

0.1000.050

100.81

m3

Packing#is#approximately#50m

m#on#draw

ing


139.3000.050

6.97m3

See#section#2.4#of#R#H#Horwitz#Associates#Structural#design#philosophy#Report

Total)Volume:

9.37

Mass#density

2162.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

20,266kg

Precast#Concrete#lintels16.200

0.1000.100

101.62

m3

Spacing#on#drawing#is#approxim

ately#500m,#existing#dw

elling#is#5m#wide

Total)Volume:

1.62m3

Mass#density

2371.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

3,841kg

Insulation,

Floor#B#Thickness#not#stated,#80mm#m

inimum

#according#to#drawing#scale

116.1000.080

9.29m3


m#m

inimum

#according#to#drawing#scale.#

80mm#will#be#required

64.6000.080

2.85014.73

m3

40mm#is#not#adequate#to#achieve#Building#Regulations#and#is#m

uch#less#than#the#thickness#required#to#achieve#the#high#performance#u#

values#needed#to#achieve#the#claimed#low

er#operational#energy.

Roof#B#To#garden,#insulation#thickness#unknown,#m

inimum

#of#100mm#to#achieve##Building#Regulations

45.5000.100

4.55m3

Total)Volume:

28.57

Mass#density

30.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

857kg

Cavity,Drain

Floor#B#1mm#thickness

116.100116.10

m2

Wall#B#1m

m#thickness

64.6003.055

197.35m2

Roof#to#garden#B#1mm#thickness

45.50045.50

m2

Total)Area:358.95

Mass#density

1.00kg/m

2http://w

ww.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&

rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=6&

ved=0CFUQFjAF&

url=http%3A%

2F%2Fw

ww.ascinfo.co.uk%

2FASCContent%


ploads%255CProductO

thers%255CM

S20_DeltaMS20BBA.pdf&

ei=mqVCU

7_2O6O

v7Qa3m

oHwCg

&usg=AFQ

jCNFU

OXS52uM

_428NBM

MSPRA6ew

uXLA&sig2=6pVO

MQXkfAq5jcw

2yGt03g&bvm

=bv.64125504,d.ZGU

Total#mass

359kg

External,Water,Proof,M

embrane

Dimplex#type#sheet#as#cavity#drain

391.520391.52

Not#show

n#on#drawings,#but#recom

mended#by#Delta#M

embrane#System

s#B#the#system#installed#for#the#basem

ent:#http://w

ww.deltam

embranes.com

/helpBadvice/http://w

ww.deltam

embranes.com

/products/deltaBterraxxB2/

Total)Area:391.52

Mass#density

1.00kg/m

2

Total#mass

392kg

Filtration#layer391.520

392

0.003Total)Volum

e1.10

Mass#density

910.00kg/m

2


rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=1&

ved=0CDEQFjAA&

url=http%3A%

2F%2Fw

ww.geosyntheticssoc

iety.org%2Fresources%

2Farchive%2Fgi%

2Fsrc%2Fv7i456%

2FgiBv7nos4B5B6Bpaper3.pdf&

ei=pJ9LU_yhE4SK7AagkYHACQ

&usg=AFQ

jCNG4ecJaXd_XDIW

eKvHZj8cld_cR5g&sig2=e7b_ituBN

ZHXwG7GdVr43g&

bvm=bv.

64542518,d.ZGU

Total#mass

998kg

Steel

H16#'L'#bar#long2.670

4311149.88

m

H16#'L'#bar#short1.460

431628.77

m

H16#Dowels

0.600215

129.20m

H16#Dowels

0.600215

129.20m

Total)Length:2037.05

m

Mass#length

1.58kg/m

Weight#per#linear#m

etre:#1.58#kg####http://w


rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=3&

ved=0CFUQFjAC&

url=http%3A%

2F%2Feurossteel.com

%2Fpro

ducts%2FReinforcem

ent.pdf&ei=VE08U

8HLHqeI7AadsYGIBQ&usg=AFQ

jCNEQ

BzSBbWBHw

luy0rinskyKHYstaA&sig2=8J6rl1O

XHNB

u3upxUUDJEA

Total#mass

3,219kg

A393#Mesh#in#RC#slab,#50m

m#cover#ddt

132.8404

531.36m2

A393#Mesh#in#RC#w

all,#50mm#cover#betw

een#slab#ddt64.600

3.1003

600.78m2

Total)Area:1132.14

m2

Mass#Area

6.16kg/m

2Weight#per#m

2:#6.16#http://www.lem

onBgs.co.uk/shop/a393BreinforcingBmesh.htm

l

Total#mass

6,974kg

Steel#reinforcement#for#roof#over#garden#B#1.1%

0.01m3

1.1%#is#the#reinforcem

ent#to#concrete#volume#ratio#for#the#RC#w

all#and#slab

Mass##Density

7850.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

59kg

Steel#beams#to#support#existing#floor,#100m

m#cover#over#underpinning

5.2007

36.40m

Spacing#not#shown,#assum

ed#to#be#2400mm#as#per#the#linear#length#of#PCC#lintels.#

Steel#dimensions#not#show

n,#drawing#scale#indicates#approxim

ately#160mm#from

#flange#to#flange,#type#assumed#to#be#152#U

C#46

Total)length:36.40

m

Mass#length

46.00kg/m

Total#mass

1,674kg

Window

s,and,openings

Glazed#doors#B#gross#area#(rear#lightwell)

1.4502.250

413.05

m2

Glass#pane#area0.550

0.0062.050

80.05

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.550

0.0572.050

80.51

m3

Percentage#of#glazing#to#frame

69%%

Note:#this#is#in#line#w

ith#the#SAP#standard#frame#factor#of#70%

Frame#area

13.00m2

Glazed#window

s#B#gross#area#(front#lightwell),#height#not#confirm

ed0.600

1.0000.60

m2

Glass#pane#area0.01

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.01

m3


70%%

Note:#SAP#standard#fram

e#factor#of#70%

Glazed#window


ed0.950

1.0000.95

m2

Glass#pane#area0.01

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.02

m3


70%%


e#factor#of#70%

Glazed#window


ed0.600

1.0000.60

m2

Glass#pane#area0.01

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.01

m3


70%%


e#factor#of#70%

Total)Volume)of)Glass:

0.07m3

Mass#Volum

e2579.00

kg/m3

Total#mass

186kg

Total)Volume)of)Tim

ber:0.55

m3

Mass#Volum

e510.00

kg/m3

Total#mass

281kg

SUMMARY)O

F)MATERIALS)>)Structural)Engineer)Draw

ingsICE)CO

2Total)CO

2Concrete

Total#Mass

293,524kg

0.1441093

ScreedTotal#M

ass32,631

kg0.14

4568

Other#cem

ent#based#materials

Total#Mass

20,266kg

0.142837

Precast#concreteTotal#M

ass3,841

kg0.169

649

Insulation#Total#M

ass857

kg4.26

3651

Cavity#DrainTotal#M

ass750

kg1.93

1448

External#Drainage/mem

brane#B#geotextile#or#similar

Total#Mass

998kg

3.433422

SteelTotal#M

ass11,926

kg1.95

23255

Window


ass186

kg1.35

251

Window

s#and#openings#B#frame

Total#Mass

281kg

9.162574

83,749

/m2

721

Materials)>)Cranbrook)Draw

ings

Concrete

RC#slab#on#grade#150mm

116.1000.150

17.42m3

RC#slab#thickening#350mm

63.8001.400

0.35031.26

m3

RC#wall#for#basem

ent,#350mm#(see#notes)

64.6000.350

2.35053.13

m3

Drawing#TD17#U


m#concrete#w

all.#

RC#lower#ground#floor#B#150m

m81.920

0.15012.29

m3

Drawing#TD17#U


m#C30#concrete#floor#slab.#

RC#to#holorib#deck#for#rear#garden#45.500

0.25011.38

m3

Total)Volume:

125.47m3

Mass#density

2300.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

288,589kg

Screed


#floor81.920

0.0655.32

m3

Total)Volume:

5.32

Mass#density

2162.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

11,512kg

Other,cem

ent,based,materials

Dry#packing64.600

0.3500.075

1.70m3

Dry#packing#over#steel#beams

32.0000.154

0.02010

0.99m3

Packing#is#approximately#20m

m#on#draw

ing


148.9900.050

7.45m3

See#section#2.4#of#R#H#Horwitz#Associates#Structural#design#philosophy#Report

Total)Volume:

10.13

Mass#density

2162.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

21,903kg

Insulation,

Floor#B#Thickness#not#stated,#50mm#m

inimum

#according#to#drawing#scale,#

80mm#assum

ed116.100

0.0809.29

m3






m#m

inimum

#according#to#drawing#scale,#

assumed

64.6000.080

2.90014.99

m3





Roof#B#To#garden,#insulation#thickness#unknown,#m

inimum

#of#100mm#to#achieve##Building#Regulations

45.5000.100

4.55m3

Total)Volume:

28.83

Mass#density

30.00kg/m

3

Total#mass

865kg

Cavity,Drain

Floor#B#1mm#thickness

116.100116.10

m2

Wall#B#1m

m#thickness

64.6003.015

194.77m2

Roof#to#garden#B#1mm#thickness

45.50045.50

m2

Total)Area:356.37

Mass#density

1.00kg/m

2http://w


rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=6&

ved=0CFUQFjAF&

url=http%3A%

2F%2Fw

ww.ascinfo.co.uk%

2FASCContent%


ploads%255CProductO

thers%255CM

S20_DeltaMS20BBA.pdf&

ei=mqVCU

7_2O6O

v7Qa3m

oHwCg

&usg=AFQ

jCNFU

OXS52uM

_428NBM

MSPRA6ew

uXLA&sig2=6pVO

MQXkfAq5jcw

2yGt03g&bvm

=bv.64125504,d.ZGU

Total#mass

356kg

External,Water,Proof,M

embrane

Dimplex#type#sheet#as#cavity#drain

391.520391.52

Not#show

n#on#drawings,#but#recom

mended#by#Delta#M

embrane#System

s#B#the#system#installed#for#the#basem

ent:#http://w

ww.deltam

embranes.com

/helpBadvice/http://w

ww.deltam

embranes.com

/products/deltaBterraxxB2/

Total)Area:391.52

Mass#density

1.00kg/m

2

Total#mass

392kg

Filtration#layer391.520

392

0.003Total)Volum

e1.10

Mass#density

910.00kg/m

2


rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=1&

ved=0CDEQFjAA&

url=http%3A%

2F%2Fw

ww.geosyntheticssoc

iety.org%2Fresources%

2Farchive%2Fgi%

2Fsrc%2Fv7i456%

2FgiBv7nos4B5B6Bpaper3.pdf&

ei=pJ9LU_yhE4SK7AagkYHACQ

&usg=AFQ

jCNG4ecJaXd_XDIW

eKvHZj8cld_cR5g&sig2=e7b_ituBN

ZHXwG7GdVr43g&

bvm=bv.

64542518,d.ZGU

Total#mass

998kg

Steel

H12#'L'#bar#1.375

323444.13

m

Total)Length:5913.58

m

Mass#length

0.89kg/m

Weight#per#linear#m



rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=3&

ved=0CFUQFjAC&

url=http%3A%

2F%2Feurossteel.com

%2Fpro

ducts%2FReinforcem

ent.pdf&ei=VE08U


jCNEQ

BzSBbWBHw


XHNB

u3upxUUDJEA

Total#mass

5,263kg

H16#'L'#bar#1.375

323444.13

m

Total)Length:444.13

m

Mass#length

1.58kg/m

Weight#per#linear#m



rct=j&q=&

esrc=s&source=w

eb&cd=3&

ved=0CFUQFjAC&

url=http%3A%

2F%2Feurossteel.com

%2Fpro

ducts%2FReinforcem

ent.pdf&ei=VE08U


jCNEQ

BzSBbWBHw


XHNB

u3upxUUDJEA

Total#mass

702kg

B142#Mesh#in#RC#slab,#35m

m#cover#ddt

113.8391

113.84m2

Total)Area:113.84

m2

Mass#Area

2.22kg/m

2Weight#per#m



l

Total#mass

253kg

B1131#Mesh#in#RC#w


een#slab#ddt64.600

2.2751

146.97m2

Total)Area:146.97

m2

Mass#Area

10.90kg/m

2Weight#per#m



l

Total#mass

1,602kg

A393#Mesh#in#RC#w


een#slab#ddt64.600

2.3001

148.58m2

Total)Area:148.58

m2

Mass#Area

6.16kg/m

2Weight#per#m



l

Total#mass

915kg


m#cover#ddt

63.8001.300

182.94

m2

Total)Area:82.94

m2

Mass#Area

5.93kg/m

2Weight#per#m



l

Total#mass

492kg


m#cover#ddt

63.8001.300

182.94

m2

Total)Area:82.94

m2

Mass#Area

10.90kg/m

2Weight#per#m



l

Total#mass

904kg

Steel#beams#to#support#existing#floor,#100m

m#cover#over#underpinning

32.00032.00

m152#U

C#46

Total)length:32.00

m

Mass#length

46.00kg/m

Weight#per#linear#m

etre#taken#from#:#http://polsteel.co.uk/steelBguide/steelBsections/uc/

Total#mass

1,472kg

Holorib#decking#for#rear#garden#roof,#plus#150mm#overlap

48.68048.68

Mass#area

12.91kg/m

2Weight#per#square#m

etre:#http://www.fischerprofil.com

/verbunddeckeBproduct.aspx?productID=9732ca23B7260B4db6B8906B19fbe0623128&

articleID=7530667eB1792B434aB8678Bbcce291c5194

Total#mass

628kg

Window

s,and,openings

Glazed#doors#B#gross#area#(rear#lightwell)

1.4502.250

413.05

m2

Glass#pane#area0.550

0.0062.050

80.05

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.550

0.0572.050

80.51

m3


69%%

Note:#this#is#in#line#w

ith#the#SAP#standard#frame#factor#of#70%

Frame#area

13.00m2

Glazed#window


ed0.600

1.0000.60

m2

Glass#pane#area0.01

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.01

m3


70%%


e#factor#of#70%

Glazed#window


ed0.950

1.0000.95

m2

Glass#pane#area0.01

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.02

m3


70%%


e#factor#of#70%

Glazed#window


ed0.600

1.0000.60

m2

Glass#pane#area0.01

m3

Timber#fram

e#area0.01

m3


70%%


e#factor#of#70%

Total)Volume)of)GLASS:

0.07m3

12.895Mass#Volum

e2579.00

kg/m3

Total#mass

186kg

Total)Volume)of)TIM

BER:0.55

m3

Mass#Volum

e510.00

kg/m3

Total#mass

281kg

SUMMARY)O

F)MATERIALS)>)Cranbrook)Draw

ingsTotal)M

assICE)CO

2Total)CO

2Concrete

Total#Mass

288,589kg

0.1440402

ScreedTotal#M

ass11,512

kg0.14

1612

Other#cem

ent#based#materials

Total#Mass

21,903kg

0.143066

Insulation#Total#M

ass865

kg4.26

3684

Cavity#DrainTotal#M

ass748

kg1.93

1443

External#Drainage/mem

brane#B#geotext#or#similar

Total#Mass

998kg

3.433422

SteelTotal#M

ass12,231

kg1.95

23851

Window


ass186

kg1.35

251

Window

s#and#openings#B#frame

Total#Mass

281kg

0.59166

77,897

/m2

671

technical review 05_13 e642... · the build -ups from the cranbook basements case study selected...

Documents